My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs
and pictures. Whether a project shows a picture or a photograph should
be the project's decision, not that of Commons. Some may prefer one,
others the other. Sexuality is in scope on Wikimedia projects, so its
images are in scope
This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
any drawing could be.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
The image is an excellent illustration of its subject.
in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar
Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Here we have an interesting discussion topic. So what /is/ the main focus of
Wikimedia? Is it about collecting together free knowledge, or is it about
spreading it? If it would only be about spreading, I think we have at least
chosen the wrong shape, because a page full of links would then be more
Hi Veronique,
thanks for posting this. In Part VI, question 82b, it is mentioned that
333,125 USD was donated in kind. Can you confirm that this does not include
the volunteer contributions to Wikipedia? (assume not, or at least hope that
it's not valued that low ;-) )
A more general question
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
This is not a photograph of sexual activity , but the after-effects of
sexual activity. A photograph is clearer about the nature of it than
any drawing could be.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
The image
These questions are very good. While perhaps not really related to the
original discussion, I just want to share my thought and experience in
Indonesian context.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:34 PM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
But which of the two is more important to us, and
2009/5/14 Ivan Lanin ivan.la...@wikimedia.or.id
snip
* Are we the only one able to perform a certain task? Are we the single
(and
therefore important) link in a chain from knowledge to receiver?
No, we are not the one. The government should actually do that. But,
we are an important
Fred Bauder wrote:
in case this is done, fyi the spelling runs: KAMA SUTRA (not kaRma)
very best,
oscar
Just a mistake Oscar, but Karma is indeed the issue. We need to do the
right thing.
From a purely theological perspective, throwing these terms
around like there is no
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.
What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
violations? Articles
I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
enough
to know that censorship is a dead issue.
It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing. I might find gifting
someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
comprehensive information about
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
Karma Sutra.
What about
This one's been discussed ad nauseam already, and I think the community's
discussions pretty unambiguously tend towards keep.
FMF
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion on this is clear: Commons should welcome both photographs
and pictures.
You could spread someone else's knowledge, no problem.
And conflicts there always are. If the collection of some content hinders
the general spreading, such as with the sexual images might be the case (but
that is just an example, you could just as well use images of the prophet
Muhamed as
El 5/14/09 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton escribió:
2009/5/14 Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/5/14 Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net:
I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
manual of
Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something about it that needs to be shown in a
specially restrained manner. The picture
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Hay (Husky) hus...@gmail.com wrote:
It's nice to see initatives like this spring up all over the world!
Next month Wikimedia Nederland (together with Creative Commons NL)
will organize a month-long 'wiki loves art' project in which 15
museums participate.
--
-- Forwarded message --
From: Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt
Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Subject: pt:wiki policies
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Sirs,
Yesterday (
Foundation-l list admin wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt
Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Subject: pt:wiki policies
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Sirs,
Yesterday (
There was a Wikipedians group which was apparently started for
networking (which in practice seemed to mean spam blasts), per
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/04/16/wikipedians-on-linkedin/
But there's at least a couple more groups which are sincere and were
just put together by Wikipedians
2009/5/14 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored.
Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of
content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for
deletion, just for a start then move on
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
(In practice, those considering Wikipedia unsuitable for mass
consumption write their own encyclopedia site, e.g. Conservapedia or
Christopedia.)
Or - how could I forget, the example of an actually good selection of
Wikipedia that's proving very
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of censorship,
it's a matter of scope. If you wish to argue that pearl
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
So is my cookbook censored because it doesn't include a description of
the Peloponnesian War? Of course not. It's not a matter of
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.
I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by
such images. If we were to implement any kind of
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors
and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages.
I don't accept that notion. I fail to
2009/5/14 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/14 Oldak Quill oldakqu...@gmail.com:
I post the suggestion above about tagging articles that may be
considered inappropriate by some, because it is better to give people
tools to block content if they choose to, than to delete content on
that
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to my daughter
saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website is *not* you should
have
Fred is conflating guidelines on style with guidelines on content.
Articles about food items are not banned.
Articles about fiction are not banned.
Fred is advocating banning a *class of articles.*
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm sorry, but why
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to my daughter
saw
2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
community is long overdue.
Schools
Hi David,
I do believe that you received recently the letter sent by Wikipedians
group owner Klaas Van Buiten
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Wikipedians
Subject: Announcement from Wikipedians
Hi everybody,
We have an overlap with a much larger group called Wikipedia Users
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/14 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that
and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia
has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of
a small subset of the overall content.
Nothing
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already
been created?
I am serious here. Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a
third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror?
2009/5/14 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are:
1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07)
Why do you need a full dump? The most recent versions should be plenty.
___
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
community
Dear Sirs,
The day before yesterday
(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Arquivo/2009/05#NH),
while discussing a private case, whose full details are confidential,
I described a strictly hypothetical case as follows:
Suppose a
W dniu 14.05.2009 06:03, private musings pisze:
g'day all,
There's an interesting deletion discussion taking place here;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png
concerning an image of a woman with sperm on her neck. To my mind
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
I believe that this is an example of principle overriding pragmatism in a
way that has great potential to cause the project harm - both in reputation
and utility. If you're reading this and are a bit confuddled
David Gerard hett schreven:
(c.f. the earlier proposal for a Victims of Soviet Repression wiki -
nice idea, but utterly unsuited to WMF through utter lack of
neutrality.)
http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ does still work by the way.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
Obviously not; here we are discussing it. One wonders if we actually did
learn any lessons during the Enlightenment...
-Mike
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:04 -0400, The Cunctator wrote:
I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long enough
to know that censorship is a dead
Re : Masti - I agree with your position that if the license seems suspect,
and the contributor can't (or won't) provide something a bit more, then the
image should be deleted - that's not the consensus on commons however, for
what that's worth - these doubts have been raised, and the image
Actually, I would argue that we shouldn't censor for principled reasons.
Supposing it were the case that we could safely censor only sexual
content with no slippery slope, we still shouldn't do so because it is
wrong regardless what the practical consequences may or may not be. That
said, a more
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
Re : Pedro - heh... I take your point - doesn't mean we shouldn't talk
about
the merits of the point at hand, though, no? If there's an improvement to
be
made, that's gonna be a good thing regardless of the opinion
2009/5/13 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/5/13 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
As it is, this is being released more than 10 months after the end of
the fiscal year which is rather a lot.
Indeed. Normally waiting a while for this kind of stuff doesn't
matter, but an organisation
The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers
is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a
couple of years. Only a small fraction of donations come via
Moneybookers but some folks prefer it over Paypal.
geni wrote:
2009/5/13 Veronique Kessler
While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
the books are appropriate for
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:00 AM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
A more general question for anyone who knows: Part III, question 1 mentions
whether the org. tried to influence politics. Does anyone know 1) what this
includes (only US politics or also foreign, also mission
2009/5/15 Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org:
The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers
is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a
couple of years. Only a small fraction of donations come via
Moneybookers but some folks prefer it
Hi,
The donations in-kind refer to donated internet hosting costs and legal
fees. In our 07-08 audit report, we discuss the volunteer contribution
but did not attempt to quantify it in terms of a dollar value. We are
investigating how best to reflect this in next year's audit report.
I
True.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/5/15 Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org:
The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers
is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a
couple of years. Only a small fraction of donations come via
fair enough, Pedro - I certainly don't want any weight, in terms of
argument, placed on my opinion that this matters - I'd much rather stick to
the substantive issues of the matter at hand it's more about discussing
wether or not it's a problem that wmf hosts pic.s of topless chicks on the
Re : This from brion;
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
the default view is a safe search which excludes items which have been
marked as adult in nature, while making it easy to
56 matches
Mail list logo
